Things look pretty good. The TruSeq DNA Methylation Library Kit (Illumina) suggests that the libraries produced should end up with concentrations >3ng/μL, but we have plenty of DNA here to make a pool for running on the HiSeq2500.

Evaluated the DNA with the Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent) using the DNA 12000 assay. Illumina recommended using the High Sensitivity assay, but we don’t have access to that so I figured I’d just give the DNA 12000 assay a go.

Ha! Well, looks like you definitely need to use the DNA High Sensitivty assay for the Bioanalyzer to pick up anything. Although, I guess you can see a slight hump in most of the samples at the appropriate sizes (~300bp); you just have to squint.

Firstly, the ladder failed to produce any peaks. Not sure why this happened. Possibly not denatured? Seems unlikely, but next time I run the Pico assay, I’ll denature the ladder aliquot I use prior to running.

Overall, the samples look as they should (see image from TruSeq DNA Methylation Kit manual below), albeit some are a bit lumpy.

The gel I ran earlier today looked real rough, due to the fact that I didn’t bother to equalize loading quantities of samples (I just loaded 1μL of all samples regardless of concentration). So, I’m repeating it using 100ng of DNA from all samples.

Look at that! The samples look MUCH nicer when they’re not overloaded and uniformly loaded!

Most have a prominent high molecular weight band (the band that’s closes to the top of the ladder, not the DNA visible in the wells). All exhibit smearing, but 2NF1 shows a weird accumulation of low molecular weight DNA.

Katie’s C.gigas samples (M1, M2, M3) look similar to the Olympia oyster gDNA, however her samples appear to have residual RNA in them (the fuzzy band ~500bp).

Will discuss with Steven which samples he wants to use for bisulfite treament and library construction.

Since I didn’t load equal quantities of DNA, the intensities across the various samples is highly variable.

Those samples with high degree of smearing are also those with the highest concentrations. Thus, one would expect to be able to visualize a greater range of DNA sizes in a gel (because more DNA is present). Notice the samples with nice, high molecular weight bands and little smearing (1NF16, 1NF17). These are less than half the concentrations of all the samples that exhibit extensive smearing (2NF3, 2NF8, 1NF12). So, I think all samples will be fine for proceeding with bisulfite conversion and subsequent library construction.

However, I should re-run this gel using equalized DNA quantities for all samples…